I thought libertarians believed in no government help on anything and that the government should only act as a police force when somebody hurts or steals from somebody else. This is the opposite of that, where the government is assisting you in healthcare.
I think American health care need's competition, insurance pay's for treatments if it's over priced there's extra cost to the patient, and no incentive to opt for another company's product
I think, that incentive aught be introduced along side insurance. allowing patients to select the treatment they want based on the doctors recommendation's advise, and cost. patients should be financially rewarded for opting for the less expensive procedure if its just as effective, more so if it's better.
Somebody choosing not to save your live is a lot different than someone choosing to kill you. It would be like not helping someone up who collapsed on a train track, versus pushing someone in front of the oncoming train. It was not your fault that that person collapsed on the train track, so you should not be punished for not helping them. Although the vast majority of people would help them up. I also think this issue should be left to the individual states.
In the hopes of maintaining this civil discourse and preventing our conversation from devolving into complete and utter confrontational dueche-baggery- Nice job on the vid. Well put together and engaging. I simply disagree with your conclusions.
Haha, thanks - for the civility, and for the discussion. I think it's an important discussion to have, and believe me: I have no illusions about the kind of unfortunate things that could happen under the system I propose. I do think that there will be less of that than we have presently, but either way, I prefer democratic control over those decisions to private hegemony.
Here is the difference. you still have a choice. It is not much of a choice thanks to government intervention and crony capitalism but it is still a choice. In a free market you can decide which coverage is best for you. In a free market the insurance companies are supposed to be held accountable via contractual obligation and your patronage.
I am fairly certain the organization I am a member of is (supposedly) non-profit and accountable to American citizens. That has not helped much.
I'm a strong believer in choice - and choice would still be available. I had private health insurance when I lived in Britain, and they've got actual nationalized health care.
My core point is that what we need from health insurance is more than choice - it's democratic accounability. When it comes to police protection, I don't want a menu of private police forces to choose from; I want a single, public police force that's accountable to the leaders I elect.
How is it that we can have "public health insurance" without creating yet another corrupt bureaucracy and growing government? The corrupt insurance scam we now have going for us is the result of "our elected officials" being involved in the system. Despite this, you advocate handing them complete control of the industry they helped to destroy. Perhaps life saving and emergency treatment could be covered by a public "insurance" option. (CONT)
Even if that were the achievable, I would not want the federal government involved. It would have to be done on the state and local level. Elected officials at that level are at least slightly more accountable to their constituents.
You're kinda coming at this from different directions. The fact that our government does some things very badly doesn't change the basic set of functions that they should be doing.
Also, I'll reiterate - I am NOT advocating for either government-run health care or the nationalization of the insurance industry. I lived in Britain, and while I was there I had private health insurance.
As for the nuts and bolts - sure, let's talk. Never said it would be easy, just that it's important.
I work under the Federal Gov full time as a soldier. My experience has led me to believe that the Gov does almost everything very badly. While it may be the Gov's responsibility to protect life, I do not think that means providing health insurance across the board. I am obviously confused as to your meaning when referring to "public health insurance." If it is public, doesn't that mean that the Gov will be administrating it? If not, then please explain.
Confession time: I don't speak German, and I don't speak Russian, and I don't have a British accent. My conclusion? Our government must do *some* things well.
Yes, the government would administrate the insurance program - not as an entitlement program, but as a paid alternative to private insurers. And to anticipate your objection: yes, I am sure that there will be a lot of bureaucracy involved. Just like there is in the military. But like the military, it would get the job done.
"HAHA!! If only you knew. Guy got his face blown off by an IED. Bureaucrat claimed that he was not wearing his eye protection at the time and wouldn't receive disability. Friends wife got pregnant. She cant see an OBGYN for two months. Why? Because the Bureaucrat's schedule is booked and he can't set up an appointment with the OBGYN who's schedule is free. BTW we won the wars you are eluding to in spite of our Gov's abilities not due to them. Thank private ingenuity+individual sacrifice.
If you want to trade stories about bureaucratic failures, Google 'health insurance horror stories' - as I said, yeah, there will be bureaucracy. The difference is, instead of the bureaucracy being designed to avoid payment whenever possible, it'll be not-for-profit ... and the guy in charge will be accountable to his customers, i.e. American citizens.
I thought libertarians believed in no government help on anything and that the government should only act as a police force when somebody hurts or steals from somebody else. This is the opposite of that, where the government is assisting you in healthcare.
slavesbydesign 10 months ago
I think American health care need's competition, insurance pay's for treatments if it's over priced there's extra cost to the patient, and no incentive to opt for another company's product
I think, that incentive aught be introduced along side insurance. allowing patients to select the treatment they want based on the doctors recommendation's advise, and cost. patients should be financially rewarded for opting for the less expensive procedure if its just as effective, more so if it's better.
an0m0nus 1 year ago
Somebody choosing not to save your live is a lot different than someone choosing to kill you. It would be like not helping someone up who collapsed on a train track, versus pushing someone in front of the oncoming train. It was not your fault that that person collapsed on the train track, so you should not be punished for not helping them. Although the vast majority of people would help them up. I also think this issue should be left to the individual states.
enomarekim 2 years ago 2
Comparing health care to a commodity like milk or eggs is a little simplistic. Its more like a purchasing a house or an airplane.
gvg1970 2 years ago
That's fair. I wanted to make it clear that I'm not claiming that the provision of health care is a "right" but rather a market-relevant commodity.
TheLimitarian 2 years ago
In the hopes of maintaining this civil discourse and preventing our conversation from devolving into complete and utter confrontational dueche-baggery- Nice job on the vid. Well put together and engaging. I simply disagree with your conclusions.
arwilson81 2 years ago
Haha, thanks - for the civility, and for the discussion. I think it's an important discussion to have, and believe me: I have no illusions about the kind of unfortunate things that could happen under the system I propose. I do think that there will be less of that than we have presently, but either way, I prefer democratic control over those decisions to private hegemony.
TheLimitarian 2 years ago
Here is the difference. you still have a choice. It is not much of a choice thanks to government intervention and crony capitalism but it is still a choice. In a free market you can decide which coverage is best for you. In a free market the insurance companies are supposed to be held accountable via contractual obligation and your patronage.
I am fairly certain the organization I am a member of is (supposedly) non-profit and accountable to American citizens. That has not helped much.
arwilson81 2 years ago
I'm a strong believer in choice - and choice would still be available. I had private health insurance when I lived in Britain, and they've got actual nationalized health care.
My core point is that what we need from health insurance is more than choice - it's democratic accounability. When it comes to police protection, I don't want a menu of private police forces to choose from; I want a single, public police force that's accountable to the leaders I elect.
TheLimitarian 2 years ago
How is it that we can have "public health insurance" without creating yet another corrupt bureaucracy and growing government? The corrupt insurance scam we now have going for us is the result of "our elected officials" being involved in the system. Despite this, you advocate handing them complete control of the industry they helped to destroy. Perhaps life saving and emergency treatment could be covered by a public "insurance" option. (CONT)
arwilson81 2 years ago
Even if that were the achievable, I would not want the federal government involved. It would have to be done on the state and local level. Elected officials at that level are at least slightly more accountable to their constituents.
arwilson81 2 years ago
You're kinda coming at this from different directions. The fact that our government does some things very badly doesn't change the basic set of functions that they should be doing.
Also, I'll reiterate - I am NOT advocating for either government-run health care or the nationalization of the insurance industry. I lived in Britain, and while I was there I had private health insurance.
As for the nuts and bolts - sure, let's talk. Never said it would be easy, just that it's important.
TheLimitarian 2 years ago
I work under the Federal Gov full time as a soldier. My experience has led me to believe that the Gov does almost everything very badly. While it may be the Gov's responsibility to protect life, I do not think that means providing health insurance across the board. I am obviously confused as to your meaning when referring to "public health insurance." If it is public, doesn't that mean that the Gov will be administrating it? If not, then please explain.
arwilson81 2 years ago
Confession time: I don't speak German, and I don't speak Russian, and I don't have a British accent. My conclusion? Our government must do *some* things well.
Yes, the government would administrate the insurance program - not as an entitlement program, but as a paid alternative to private insurers. And to anticipate your objection: yes, I am sure that there will be a lot of bureaucracy involved. Just like there is in the military. But like the military, it would get the job done.
TheLimitarian 2 years ago
"HAHA!! If only you knew. Guy got his face blown off by an IED. Bureaucrat claimed that he was not wearing his eye protection at the time and wouldn't receive disability. Friends wife got pregnant. She cant see an OBGYN for two months. Why? Because the Bureaucrat's schedule is booked and he can't set up an appointment with the OBGYN who's schedule is free. BTW we won the wars you are eluding to in spite of our Gov's abilities not due to them. Thank private ingenuity+individual sacrifice.
arwilson81 2 years ago
If you want to trade stories about bureaucratic failures, Google 'health insurance horror stories' - as I said, yeah, there will be bureaucracy. The difference is, instead of the bureaucracy being designed to avoid payment whenever possible, it'll be not-for-profit ... and the guy in charge will be accountable to his customers, i.e. American citizens.
TheLimitarian 2 years ago
Perhaps you should get off the government dole and get a private sector job. Try being part of the solution instead of part of the problem.
gvg1970 2 years ago
Always worked in the private sector, probably always will. Better money. ;)
TheLimitarian 2 years ago
Sorry, I was directing that at arwilson81.
gvg1970 2 years ago
OK, I will turn in my two week notice and catch the first flight home from Baghdad.
arwilson81 2 years ago
your voice is awesome
haeby1 2 years ago
Haha, thanks. Voice for radio and a face to match. ;)
TheLimitarian 2 years ago